Andy Burns presented the following explanation :
Same here, but 40/10 and Virgin have fibred the whole village, to every door. 40/10 does more than I need, my copper at 15/5 did more than I needed.
Virgin have failed here in North Staffordshire. If you put the post code in they say we have it. But in fact it stops a few houses down, they have no intention of expanding it, sadly.
I managed to borrow modems until the USR v.everything came along, it lived up to its name and I never needed to replace it to keep up with faster speeds ...
So we are told we are supposed to be wary of Huawei becuase of alleged ties to it's governemnt - and then fully embrace the idea of our own government providing "free" broadband to us all?
Even if the various government agencies already have more surveillance data than they can handle, this is still a step too far.
Totally agree.
Build out the core network to everywhere, however remote, to allow local provision of fixed line broadband or the building of mobile towers to provide good quality 4G. If necessary build the towers as well.
It would do wonders for remote communities and especially farmers. Not to mention the emergency services.
Offering "free" broadband is just mindless click bait. No mention of current added value and infrastructure service providers. I haven't yet seen if the ISPs will be free.
Good initial idea but a step way too far.
Cheers
Dave R
I assume you mean Lewes:
If you think Corbyn, or anyone else, will achieve 100% coverage- ie no property in the UK without 'fast' (define fast) internet, I advise you to avoid any to good to be true offers involving millions of pounds/ dollars going unclaimed etc.
And, of course, it is not free. There's a capital cost for installation and an on-cost for maintenance.
The only money that the IT giants have is what they take from their customers directly or indirectly. Tax that, and they will replace it somehow.
I *do* agree that it is in the national interest to get decent bandwidth to small and remote communities.
Given that they said that the Plusnet part of BT would not be privatised, it seems they assume it could survive by some other means
You may find that the take-up of Virgin fibre (for phone/TV/Internet) hasn't necessarily been that great in areas where its already in the pavement outside peoples homes. I keep getting bombarded with offers saying I could save perhaps £400 on their usual prices for the first 2 years but for me it isn't a saving - I don't watch sport and get TV via aerial and dish (Freeview/Freesat) and my Internet is fast enough with fibre to the local cabinet.
When was *any* policy - especially one floated to win an election - delivered exactly as promised ?
Never, that's when.
So if we strip away the frothing, maybe there's a case for some sort of universal provision of broadband at a basic level. Enough to access the services provided online by government ? And if the subscriber wants and can afford more, they upgrade to full fat HD streaming levels of broadband ?
And "free" broadband covering the entire UK makes a f*ck of a lot more fair use of tax money than the ¿is-it-isn't-it? saga that HS2 has become.
alan_m used his keyboard to write :
Exactly the same here, I feel rather sorry for them and the amount they have invested locally.
I only use it for text, email and a bit of streaming - it does that fine.
Except I only spend £300/year in the first place
If virgin had planted their fibre a year before BT, rather than a year afterwards (or strung their coax a few miles further out of the city any time in the previous 20 years) they'd have probably got my business over BT.
BBC and Graun seem to be reporting it as being for all homes *and* businesses, but I couldn't see any mention of businesses in either Corbyn or McDonnell's speeches ...
Why does that make sense when it didn?t with a basic phone service ?
exhausts
What would T-Mobile want a server farm for? Lots of routers, switches and the like on the other hand and of course all the air con to keep the stuff cool...
But if that building is part of T-Mobile's core network I'd have expected a rather higher level of security.
Andy Burns presented the following explanation :
I think they probably saw this as an affluent area, with likely good take up prospects. I've not seen many actually take it up. We've them twice knocking on doors and three or four mailings.
Possibly because so many government services are going online and not having access puts people at a significant disadvantage - and costs government departments at lot of time and money providing phone support instead.
SteveW
England,
Agreed.
votes.
Well this one is a minus point. But then the two main partys seem to be engaging in a spensing war. That won't be good, I don't like the "boom and bust" but it's preferable "bust and bust".
Already moving towards that with the Universal Service Obligation. From 20 March 2020 (currently...!) people will have the legal right to request a minimum 10 Mbps down 1 Mbps up 'net connection and BT (or KCOM in Hull) will be obliged to provide it.
There are a few gotchas though to be eligable:
No access to a service offering greater than 10 Mbps down 1Mbps up and other parameters like latency which rules out geostationary satellite systems.
If the only service available costs > £45/month.(*)
Property not due to be connected to a publicly funded roll out scheme within 12 months of the date of request.
No more than £3400 to build, though the customer can choose to pay any excess.
(*) This is the one that may rule a lot of people out as 4G will deliver the technical aspects. The USO has a minimum data allowance of 100 GB, are there any 4G data tarrifs that give > 100 GB for < £45/month?
Telephone has a USO as well, that's why it costs a standard installation fee rather than something based on the true cost of providing service. Though again there is a limit to the maximum build cost for the standard installation fee.
Curiously I can't find anything that mentions an installation fee in relation to a USO 'net connection only the monthly cost. No installation fee would fit "free proviosn of broadband"...
Weasel words, somthing that politicians are extremely good at.
I used to get those at our old house. Since ADSL was crap, I was really interested.
Trouble is Virgin didn't serve our housing estate... not within a mile.
Andy
I thought he must be being misquoted, but
"We?ll deliver that free full-fibre broadband in tranches, beginning with those with the worst quality broadband: including rural and remote regions"
So he'll start with those people who don't even have mains power or water?
Andy
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.